Tech —

Google and Microsoft are out to stop dual-boot Windows/Android devices

Asus is the current target of their ire.

We've seen numerous companies announce devices that boot Android and some flavor of Windows, but very few of them ever hit the market. Just yesterday, Huawei announced that it was switching its Windows Phones to dual-OS Windows Phone/Android devices, which would launch in the second quarter of this year. Samsung announced the Ativ Q dual-boot convertible nine months ago, and we never heard about it again. One of the few companies actually shipping dual-boot hardware is Asus, which offers a convertible tablet/laptop and a few all-in-one PCs.

According to a report from The Wall Street Journal, Microsoft and Google are both out to stifle any device that doesn't have a firm allegiance to either Android or Windows. The report says that both companies have told Asus to end its dual-OS product lines and that Asus is complying. The WSJ says Asus' newest dual-boot product, the Transformer Book Duet TD300, which we wrote about during CES 2014, will never see the light of day. Asus' all-in-one PCs, the Transformer AiO P1801 and P1802, will be pulled from the market.

Further Reading

Both companies have reasons to want to stop dual-boot devices. Windows 8 is under pressure with its desktop, and Microsoft does not want Android to get a foothold there. Android dominates smartphones, and Google doesn't want Windows Phone paired with Android. Both companies have ways of making OEMs comply with their wishes. Microsoft provides PC OEMs with marketing funds, which the report says are an "important economic force" in the low-margin PC business. Companies that aren't on board with Microsoft's vision could have their money dry up. While the base of Android is open source, the Play Store, Google Maps, and other Google apps needed to make a viable smartphone are under Google's control. Companies that don't comply with Google's requests might not get the apps they need to have a competitive product.

The report seems to indicate that Microsoft is unhappy that Android would be packaged with both Windows 8 and Windows Phone, which is interesting given that Microsoft has an upcoming Windows Phone update that supports on-screen buttons, which would mean Android hardware could be reused for Windows Phone. Apparently switching OSes in the factory is OK, but allowing consumers to do so at will is a step too far.

The objections from Microsoft and Google are a big blow for Intel, whose x86 architecture is the only chip that can run Android next to the full version of Windows 8. The report states that Intel's plan around this is to help OEMs ship PCs and tablets to distribution channels with no OS pre-installed. The device could then be loaded with the desired OS when a customer orders a system.

The report makes no mention of the Asus Transformer Book Trio, a Windows 8/Android laptop currently on sale. The Trio might escape Microsoft and Google's wrath by actually being two completely separate computers disguised as a single laptop. The bottom of the laptop/tablet hybrid runs Windows 8, and the top is a tablet that runs Android. The Trio has two of everything—the top and bottom have separate CPUs, RAM, storage, cameras, and network connectivity, but the two halves connect laptop-style and share the screen and keyboard. It will be interesting to keep an eye on that Amazon link and see if it disappears soon.

All of this ignores the fact that dual-OS devices are always terrible products. Windows and Android almost never cross-communicate, so any dual-OS device means dealing with separate apps, data, and storage pools and completely different UI paradigms. So from a consumer perspective, Microsoft and Google are really just saving OEMs from producing tons of clunky devices that no one will want. Giving consumers a choice of OS is great, but they only need to make the choice once: at the time of purchase.

Ron Amadeo
Ron is the Reviews Editor at Ars Technica, where he specializes in Android OS and Google products. He is always on the hunt for a new gadget and loves to rip things apart to see how they work. Emailron.amadeo@arstechnica.com//Twitter@RonAmadeo

The objections from Microsoft and Google are a big blow for Intel, whose x86 architecture is the only chip that can run Android next to the full version of Windows 8. The report states that Intel's plan around this is to help OEMs ship PCs and tablets to distribution channels with no OS pre-installed. The device could then be loaded with the desired OS when a customer orders a system.

Wasn't a similar trick used to get Linux onto OEM machines back in the day?

Why can't someone just give me a full-featured emulator like VirtualBox that runs Android inside Windows? I know there's the developer SDK emulator but it isn't full-featured in terms of a designed for repeated uses and end-user ongoing activities. Seems like with the touch-based laptops and windows tablets out there, if I could just have the play store installed on a VirtualBox, I'd be all set. And if that violates Google's ToS, then how about Amazon's App store?

Not that I really want a dual boot android/windows laptop...but having that choice forcefully removed is wrong.

The funny thing about the "consumer loses again" complaint is that daily with tablets and phones, people purchase either one, thereby sending the message that they not only got what they want, but by omission don't prefer the other (fan-boys being the most egregious demonstration of this).

Why can't someone just give me a full-featured emulator like VirtualBox that runs Android inside Windows? I know there's the developer SDK emulator but it isn't full-featured in terms of a designed for repeated uses and end-user ongoing activities. Seems like with the touch-based laptops and windows tablets out there, if I could just have the play store installed on a VirtualBox, I'd be all set. And if that violates Google's ToS, then how about Amazon's App store?

I believe you can sideload Amazon's app store into the dev SDK emulator right now. So, I think you're really talking about fine-tuning the UI of that emulator for more seamless use by naive end-users, and maybe smarter suspend/resume of the VM. It should already have pretty good performance if you use the x86 build of Android on an x86 VM on an x86 CPU.

(You will have the problem that apps that use native code and do not include x86 won't work, I suppose. That probably describes a lot of games.)

Google can't really stop you from pirating gapps.zip. It's everywhere. Personally I sideload all my applications and have never installed the playstore on my hacked android device. Which would be illegal but I hacked it before those FTC freedom stomping rules were in place, so it's grandfathered.

Not that I really want a dual boot android/windows laptop...but having that choice forcefully removed is wrong.

The funny thing about the "consumer loses again" complaint is that daily with tablets and phones, people purchase either one, thereby sending the message that they not only got what they want, but by omission don't prefer the other (fan-boys being the most egregious demonstration of this).

That's a bogus argument. Since there are very few (if any) dual-boot phones/tablets available, of course people don't buy them. Buying an iPad doesn;t mean you hate Android, and vice versa.

Not that I really want a dual boot android/windows laptop...but having that choice forcefully removed is wrong.

The funny thing about the "consumer loses again" complaint is that daily with tablets and phones, people purchase either one, thereby sending the message that they not only got what they want, but by omission don't prefer the other (fan-boys being the most egregious demonstration of this).

Then there isn't really any need for any sort of dubious collusion or extortion now is there?

The market can sort these things out for itself. It doesn't need any sort of Robber Baron or tyrant inserting itself into the situation. The choices made by Acer (or anyone else) can either succeed or fail based on their own merit. No one needs to interfere.

Great article, and a sentiment that is common. This is not about choice, or being good, or great for consumers. Having these dual boot monstrosities hit the market would only further confuse consumers. Maybe great for giga nerds, but great for consumers is having similar designs with different operating systems (Which MS is working towards) NOT having multiple OSs that do not correlate crammed into the same phone.

As a developer this would have come in handy to have a single machine that does both OSes for testing purposes. However, for regular consumers this is really the worst of both worlds. I understand MS and Google pressuring to keep this out of consumers hands, but the libertarian gadget geek in me is wanting one and hating both companies for forcing this out of the market.

This is not about choice, or being good, or great for consumers. Having these dual boot monstrosities hit the market would only further confuse consumers.

Some consumers, sure.

But consider the x86 Macintosh. I know multiple people who stayed away from Macintosh until they switched to x86 and had Boot Camp. That meant these folks could buy a mac, and if they didn't like the OS, just replace it with Windows and recoup almost all of their investment. Most of the folks I know who did that (but not all of them) ended up sticking with MacOS.

This is not about choice, or being good, or great for consumers. Having these dual boot monstrosities hit the market would only further confuse consumers.

Some consumers, sure.

But consider the x86 Macintosh. I know multiple people who stayed away from Macintosh until they switched to x86 and had Boot Camp. That meant these folks could buy a mac, and if they didn't like the OS, just replace it with Windows and recoup almost all of their investment. Most of the folks I know who did that (but not all of them) ended up sticking with MacOS.

It's time mainstream PC makers like Asus started prominently bundling a major Linux distro with their machines and freed themselves from the shackles of both Microsoft and Google (preferably a distro that has the classic Windows-style UI as default and not any of this Ubuntu Mac-wannabe nonsense).

I don't understand. Wouldn't an attempt by Microsoft to tell an OEM not to make a dual-boot device result in immediate antitrust prosecution, including seizure of the company's assets by the U.S. government, jailing of the executives involved, and so on? If not, clearly the laws have to be tightened up so that it's clear that companies with a market share like Microsoft's cannot, ever, do anything that makes the operating system other than a commodity.

I'm not an Android fan (nothing negative just prefer Windows Phone) so I'm curious: what benefit would there be to dual booting Android on a laptop with Windows? Is there something Android offers in a desktop style environment (laptop with keyboard) that x86 Windows doesn't?

I don't understand. Wouldn't an attempt by Microsoft to tell an OEM not to make a dual-boot device result in immediate antitrust prosecution, including seizure of the company's assets by the U.S. government, jailing of the executives involved, and so on? If not, clearly the laws have to be tightened up so that it's clear that companies with a market share like Microsoft's cannot, ever, do anything that makes the operating system other than a commodity.

Yes, but I think both Google and Microsoft are opposed to it, and these would be the only parties that would be interested in starting such an anti-trust suit.

I don't understand. Wouldn't an attempt by Microsoft to tell an OEM not to make a dual-boot device result in immediate antitrust prosecution, including seizure of the company's assets by the U.S. government, jailing of the executives involved, and so on? If not, clearly the laws have to be tightened up so that it's clear that companies with a market share like Microsoft's cannot, ever, do anything that makes the operating system other than a commodity.

Well, as the article stated:

Quote:

Both companies have ways of making OEMs comply with their wishes. Microsoft provides PC OEMs with marking funds, which the report says are an "important economic force" in the low-margin PC business. Companies that aren't on board with Microsoft's vision could have their money dry up. While the base of Android is open source, the Play Store, Google Maps, and other Google apps needed to make a viable smartphone are under Google's control. Companies that don't comply with Google's requests might not get the apps they need to have a competitive product.

It's kind of like the Federal gov't telling a state to raise it's drinking age or lower it's speed limit, or else it will stop receiving Federal money for road improvements. technically it's outside Federal jurisdiction to dictate those statutes, but a little indirect [financial] pressure does the trick.

I'm not an Android fan (nothing negative just prefer Windows Phone) so I'm curious: what benefit would there be to dual booting Android on a laptop with Windows? Is there something Android offers in a desktop style environment (laptop with keyboard) that x86 Windows doesn't?

It has a detachable screen, so it runs just like a tablet as well. All the components are in the screen actually.

I don't understand. Wouldn't an attempt by Microsoft to tell an OEM not to make a dual-boot device result in immediate antitrust prosecution, including seizure of the company's assets by the U.S. government, jailing of the executives involved, and so on? If not, clearly the laws have to be tightened up so that it's clear that companies with a market share like Microsoft's cannot, ever, do anything that makes the operating system other than a commodity.

Um, no.

It isn't illegal to license your software to resellers subject to certain terms... Just as it isn't illegal to decide who you want to do business with and not sell to those who you dont want to.

Its not even illegal to have a monopoly.

What is illegal is to misuse market dominance. In the Mobile market, Microsoft isn't dominant, therefore there is no dominance to misuse. Its their choice who they do business with, and on what terms they should do business. Unless there is an overwelming reason otherwise, thats exactly how it should be.

I don't understand. Wouldn't an attempt by Microsoft to tell an OEM not to make a dual-boot device result in immediate antitrust prosecution, including seizure of the company's assets by the U.S. government, jailing of the executives involved, and so on? If not, clearly the laws have to be tightened up so that it's clear that companies with a market share like Microsoft's cannot, ever, do anything that makes the operating system other than a commodity.

Well, as the article stated:

Quote:

Both companies have ways of making OEMs comply with their wishes. Microsoft provides PC OEMs with marking funds, which the report says are an "important economic force" in the low-margin PC business. Companies that aren't on board with Microsoft's vision could have their money dry up. While the base of Android is open source, the Play Store, Google Maps, and other Google apps needed to make a viable smartphone are under Google's control. Companies that don't comply with Google's requests might not get the apps they need to have a competitive product.

It's kind of like the Federal gov't telling a state to raise it's drinking age or lower it's speed limit, or else it will stop receiving Federal money for road improvements. technically it's outside Federal jurisdiction to dictate those statutes, but a little indirect [financial] pressure does the trick.

To add to that, it is still rather sad that Asus still has that BS "Asus recommends Windows" on their website when browsing their tablets. But what do they care, they get $$ to say that, even if it isn't true.

It's time mainstream PC makers like Asus started prominently bundling a major Linux distro with their machines and freed themselves from the shackles of both Microsoft and Google (preferably a distro that has the classic Windows-style UI as default and not any of this Ubuntu Mac-wannabe nonsense).

It's not the particular distro you want, but Dell sells a number of devices with Ubuntu factory-installed, including the XPS 13 ultrabook and the Alienware X51 compact desktop.

I don't understand. Wouldn't an attempt by Microsoft to tell an OEM not to make a dual-boot device result in immediate antitrust prosecution, including seizure of the company's assets by the U.S. government, jailing of the executives involved, and so on? If not, clearly the laws have to be tightened up so that it's clear that companies with a market share like Microsoft's cannot, ever, do anything that makes the operating system other than a commodity.

Um, no.

It isn't illegal to license your software to resellers subject to certain terms... Just as it isn't illegal to decide who you want to do business with and not sell to those who you dont want to.

Its not even illegal to have a monopoly.

What is illegal is to misuse market dominance. In the Mobile market, Microsoft isn't dominant, therefore there is no dominance to misuse. Its their choice who they do business with, and on what terms they should do business. Unless there is an overwelming reason otherwise, thats exactly how it should be.

To add to this, for example, look at apple. They consistenly prohibited 3rd party browsers on IOS (or just their rendering engine now). No one can force them to open it up since they had that stance since day one, even if they eventually had a dominant position.

But when they changed their stance on 3rd party dev tools for ios, and banned google voice after allowing it, the FTC came after them, since that was a change after becoming a dominant platform.

To add to this, for example, look at apple. They consistenly prohibited 3rd party browsers on IOS (or just their rendering engine now). No one can force them to open it up since they had that stance since day one, even if they eventually had a dominant position.

This isn't right. It's not about "how it's always been". It's abusing the dominant position, simple as. Apple does not, has not, and never has had a dominant position. Android is outselling it quite comprehensively.

No antitrust can be levied against Apple for its very closed ecosystem simply because it's a minority competitor, not the dominant platform. If Apple decides there will be no third party apps (like the original iPhone), then well, shitty business decision and Google will eat Apple's lunch. No law has been broken.

Two households, both alike in dignity,In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.From forth the fatal loins of these two foesA pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;Whose misadventur'd piteous overthrowsDoth with their death bury their parents' strife.

To add to this, for example, look at apple. They consistenly prohibited 3rd party browsers on IOS (or just their rendering engine now). No one can force them to open it up since they had that stance since day one, even if they eventually had a dominant position.

This isn't right. It's not about "how it's always been". It's abusing the dominant position, simple as. Apple does not, has not, and never has had a dominant position. Android is outselling it quite comprehensively.

No antitrust can be levied against Apple for its very closed ecosystem simply because it's a minority competitor, not the dominant platform.

Your argument only makes sense if you ignore the second part of my post

Ahh it seems neither Microsoft or Android want competition. Dual boot means the user would choose which one they prefer, free the user and each company would had to actually compete for the users choice.

Well, this shows what I have told in so many comments before and its dangerous.

Software bundled with hardware is dangerous. It does not allow the user to choose the software they want and use the hardware for that they want. Its like its not their hardware anymore and the user is the one paying for it.

I´m very sure as how the trend is going, in the future they are going to make it even difficult in PCs to remove the OS that comes with it.

On part we can blame Apple for this. They don´t even allow third party software in their OS, like browsers, etc, its a real monopoly in the apple ecosystem and Apple always got away with it, even telling users what they can and can´t do with the hardware they supposedly own. Since Apple always got away with it, its normal that Microsoft and Google follow the same path.

To add to this, for example, look at apple. They consistenly prohibited 3rd party browsers on IOS (or just their rendering engine now). No one can force them to open it up since they had that stance since day one, even if they eventually had a dominant position.

This isn't right. It's not about "how it's always been". It's abusing the dominant position, simple as. Apple does not, has not, and never has had a dominant position. Android is outselling it quite comprehensively.

No antitrust can be levied against Apple for its very closed ecosystem simply because it's a minority competitor, not the dominant platform. If Apple decides there will be no third party apps (like the original iPhone), then well, shitty business decision and Google will eat Apple's lunch. No law has been broken.

Apple was in a dominant position before, in both phones and tablets, when Android was starting, Apple was in a dominant position for a few years and nobody said or did anything.

Sure they are not in a dominant position today but they surely where in both phones and tablets.